I have no argument that macro's are simpler (maybe not so simple in a mail
merge) - but you brought up 'legal significance' and there is none. The
field constructions may be complex, but they work (and in the final analysis
that is all that matters), and all the donkey work has already been done.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org



Jezebel wrote:
I think it would be irresponsible, in a formal application, to rely
on a field calculation of the Macropod sort. Those field sequences
(converting to Julian number and back) are technically -- ie, in the
audit sense -- 'complex calculations' of the sort that requires, in
any situation subject to audit, formally documented validation.
These is easily provided for macro code -- particularly for code as
trivial as adding 28 to a date; it is not easily provided for a
nested field calculation that runs to more than 300 characters and
five levels of nesting.


"Graham Mayor" wrote in message
...
How do you think a date inserted by macro or even typed from the
keyboard would have greater legal significance than one inserted by
a field calculation?

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org



Jezebel wrote:
Unfortunately, Word doesn't provide a simple field-based way to do
date arithmetic. If you've got nothing better to do and yoru
document has no legal significance, you can experiment Macropod's
hilarious field calculations (do a Google); but if the requirement
is anything serious, you'll need to use a macro.








"Ranger Tony" Ranger wrote in
message ...
Hey all,
I use Word97. I'm trying to create an auto update field that shows
the print date + 28 days in 'day, date month year' format in a
letter. The field code for the print date is: { PRINTDATE \@
"dddd, dd MMMM
yyyy" \* MERGEFORMAT }
I've experimented with a couple of things, but had no glory at all.
Cheers
Tony